Frank Miller makes the mistake of defending Neil Gaiman

Veteran leftist artist Miller was interviewed by the UK Telegraph at the Fastnet Film Festival in Ireland, and he still can't keep himself from pushing all the wrong buttons. First:

It’s hard to overstate Frank Miller’s cultural impact over the past four decades. It was Miller, the artist and writer behind The Dark Knight Returns, 300 and Sin City, who redefined comics from kids’ stuff into something darker and more adult – noirish, dystopian and morally ambiguous. Without Miller, Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan’s Batman films wouldn’t exist; without Miller, the whole movie superhero phenomenon might never have happened at all.

And I guess Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and Chuck Dixon don't matter, huh? Only Miller; how nice to know only so many other decent Batman writers don't count the tiniest bit. Predictably, no objective view of "something darker" and "morally ambiguous", as though that's totally above criticism. As for Miller himself, what matters to him? Left-wing "causes":

Still, he’d take that New York, “for all its despair and menace and its degradation”, he tells me, over the one that exists now. The city “in those dark Seventies”, he says, had a spirit of defiance, “a sense of shared safety and, well, there’s no other word for it, love. I don’t believe it does now. We have a militarised police, those horrific ICE agents are nothing less than a Gestapo, and the city itself has been so mismanaged for so long. As scary and grim as things were in the Seventies, there was not the overall stink of totalitarianism that there is throughout America today.”

Is the incumbent president an archetypally corrupt, money-grabbing Frank Miller political villain? “He’s grotesque,” Miller spits, comparing Donald Trump to Darth Vader without his mask. He invokes the characters that the co-creator of Captain America, Jack Kirby, conjured when the Nazis were rampaging across Europe. “Kirby several times recreated Adolf Hitler as a comic-book character. One of them was named Hate-Monger, and that one certainly applies to Trump, because he spews hatred, and he calls on that part of the human spirit in his rhetoric, and you see it on the faces of his followers – the naked racism, the naked sexism, the belligerence.”

It's so sad Miller continues to spew hatred at Trump for all the wrong reasons, and all without clearly backing up his complaints with concrete evidence. And all the while, Miller turns a deaf ear and blind eye to the Iranian ayatollahs, who preached what he speaks of, and Miller's ignorance only dampens whatever impact he must want his GNs to have. That Miller also attacks ICE and refuses, much like his other leftist colleagues he doesn't have the courage to distance himself from, to consider what heinous crimes any illegal immigrants have committed within the USA's borders. The really sad thing is that, if we take Mark Levin's criticisms as an example, there are valid issues one can make when it comes to Trump's managements, yet Miller acts oblivious to all of that. So again, if Miller believes Sin City's a masterpiece, why does he make it look like a joke as a result of his far-left stances? There's also quite a goof in this Telegraph article:

Those early days were exciting. New influences were flowing into Manhattan via the first Forbidden Planet comic-book store, where Miller mainlined the work of Japanese and European masters. His first creator-owned work, Ronin (1983-1984), was a sci-fi samurai mash-up set in contemporary New York that incorporated a wild mix of influences, with manga writ large. Some complain of cultural appropriation in borrowing from other traditions. Miller says, “I welcome any such activity. America is an amalgam of cultures… If we could, I’d love us to learn from Martians.”

Umm, doesn't contemporary mean "modern"? I read Ronin years ago, and putting aside for now that it was overrated, I seem to recall it was set in a future time. Maybe not that far into the future, but it was set years ahead all the same. Gee, what a stupid typo they put to use there. Surprising though, that Miller upheld drawing from foreign cultures, considering how limp his positions are on any subjects involving serious issues like what Sin City may be about. Unfortunately, that's about as far as he may go by now in defense of anything creative and challenging.

There’s a humorous, upbeat quality to Miller that belies the sometimes Stygian darkness of his work. His physical trials – his neck is bent by an undisclosed condition into a position that is visibly limiting – do not daunt him; he declares himself “reborn” as an artist, rather than compromised by his posture. He draws with dramatic vigour, using techniques that embrace the unpredictable. Blood spatters across his pages. Miller achieves the effect by dipping a toothbrush into ink and pulling back the bristles with his thumb to send droplets flying across his creations.

And we're supposed to be utterly impressed and thrilled by his use of bloodletting? What's so "unpredictable" about that? It's actually been quite a cliche for goodness knows how long. That aside, here's what they say about certain other parts of the content:

In Sin City (1991), the men are staggeringly brutal and the women are almost all sex workers. “As far as misogyny goes,” Miller says, “I laugh about it because all you have to do is just read my work. [The accusations] might be because I draw the women as attractive, but in Daredevil, for instance, who’s the most powerful character you remember? It’s Elektra… When it comes to Sin City, yes, I draw the women to be as sexy as possible, but they have their own neighbourhood that they police by themselves. They’re a pack of Amazons.” He is, he insists, not the least bit misogynistic himself.

He’s been accused of Islamophobia, too, after penning Holy Terror in 2011, a graphic novel that he writes “was created in a bloodthirsty rage” after the attacks on New York City on September 11. He had originally conceived it as a story in which Batman simply “kicks Al-Qaeda’s ass”, but instead it “sparked a fire of criticism, some of it warranted”. “It was a howl of pain and rage, and an inarticulate one. I’ll just leave it at that,” he tells me.

On the subject of how he draws women, yes, it's quite possible PC advocates over the years attacked him just for that, but apparently not for the violent content he's decidedly notorious for drawing in the Sin City series. As for the Holy Terror GN, again, it's regrettable he first decided to say 8 years ago that he regrets it, because for somebody who claims he's not a misogynist, he's letting a religious ideology wallowing in just that off the hook. It may have been "inarticulate", but that's surely because he never studied anything about Islam and didn't defend his work based on that. Making matters worse, the same guy who says he's not a misogynist then goes on to defend another writer who was accused of just that:

Generally, Miller is not interested in slanging matches. He says that it would please the media if “I spent half an interview” talking about the embattled writer Neil Gaiman – accused in 2024 of sexual assault by multiple women, which Gaiman denies – “saying, ‘He’s not just a terrible writer, he’s a bad person.’ You know, something crazy like that, when he’s a lovely person, he’s a terrific writer.”

Oh good grief, does he realize he's giving serious detractors a statement to use against him? The same artist and writer who said earlier he's not a misogynist destroys his defense by acting as an apologist for a man who turned out to be scummy. Is Miller doing this because he's worried his recent documentary, American Genius, will suffer in sales due to Gaiman's contributions to it? Well that's partly Miller's fault, as he probably didn't think to vet most of the people who chipped in while preparing the production.

Now the memoir is done, he’s writing a story for the 1,000th issue of Spider-Man in September. Does he still feel affection for those old characters? “Oh God, yes,” he says. “That’s the stuff I grew up on. I’m so fond of it.” And does he think the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been bad for print comics? “I don’t know how good it’s been for movies,” he says with a sly laugh.

What of the prospect of a real “superman” in the near future, as robots and AI continue to advance? “It’s not gonna be that,” he says. “AI is a false god… [and] it’s making for some bad writing.” Meanwhile, this thoroughly human creative engine is still thinking about what he wants to do next – Beowulf, perhaps. Or Der Ring des Nibelungen. “There are an awful lot of stories,” he says.

Well Miller's offering up some very bad commentary ensuring he won't be the most famous creator to come about in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. One of the worst things about modern comics movies is that they did come at the expense of the zygotes, and while Miller may claim to have affection for even Spidey, his failure to address the erasure of the Spider-marriage can speak volumes. It won't be shocking if the 1000th Spidey issue spoken of turns out to be heavily mandated, with C.B. Cebulski prohibiting a reinstatement of the marriage with Mary Jane Watson. So why tell us about the upcoming "anniversary" or even about his new memoir, Push the Wall? After this insult to the intellect from a guy who doesn't seem to understand the importance of consistency, I'd rather not waste my time on either. Miller's problem is that he simply won't keep his mouth shut, and recognize that obsessions like his with figures like Trump doesn't make him a realist. Miller's only proving he's one of the most disappointing artists in comicdom today, and then, if his recent projects were failures, we shouldn't be surprised why. With a few exceptions like Daredevil and maybe Batman: Year One, he is pretty overrated as an artist and writer. And his defense of Gaiman is very troubling.

Kingston's first game convention gives a role to Canadian comics creators

The Kingston Whig-Standard wrote about the first video game convention being held in the Ontario city, where even comics creators had a role:

Indie game developers, esports competitors, comic book creators, and pop-culture enthusiasts gathered at Slush Puppie Place this past weekend for the inaugural Eh! Game Expo.

The event was a three-day festival that organizers hope will become an annual event in Kingston. The expo featured esports competition, cosplay, trading card games, artists and exhibitors from across Ontario and Quebec.

The event also included the Fight for the Throne esports tournament, bringing competitive players together for games such as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Street Fighter 6, Tekken 8 and other fighting titles.

Among those showcasing their creative work was Chris Cochrane, a longtime musician and teacher who moved to Kingston nearly a decade ago. That’s when he decided to revisit a dream he first pursued as a young artist: creating comic books.

For Cochrane, founder of Kingston-based Machete Comics, the expo was more than a business opportunity. He saw it as evidence that a community centred on comics, gaming and fan culture is continuing to grow in Kingston.

“I knew that I wanted to do comic books,” Cochrane said. “I figured this is a trilogy in life. This is the third chapter in a trilogy.”

Well good luck to him on his productions. But, the guy unfortunately couldn't resist bringing up a political complaint:

Cochrane cited recent trade tensions and the rising cost of selling books in the United States as key factors in swaying his interest more heavily toward Canadian stories and local creators.

“Because of the tariffs, one of my comic books costs about 40 bucks in the U.S. now,” he said.

Oh good grief, can it really cost that much, tariffs or none? I thought those applied more to distribution and delivery than the list prices on the books themselves. It would seem some Canadians just aren't willing to take issue with their local government and what it's doing wrong, and the aforementioned Tom Grummett was one such person.

I think more Canadian storytelling can be a great thing, but they should seriously leave grudges with the USA and Trump out of this. The same can be said for the video games industry.

Insufficient reactions from industry insiders to the Andrew Farago scandal

I looked to see if any comics writers and artists responded to the reports of the disgraced Andrew Farago being arrested for invasion of privacy felonies. So far, I couldn't find many at all. One who did respond was Gail Simone, of all people, on Facebook: So she's claiming she only spoke with Farago briefly through the mail. But what if there was more correspondence? In any case, somebody as leftist as Simone sadly is doesn't qualify as "moral authority" on the subject that turned up in the past few weeks. Some of the positions Simone took in the past decade only render her "arguments" moot, one more reason it's a shame anybody follows her on social media.

If we were to also quote somebody else who responded to the above post, it's the onetime comics editor Peter Sanderson:

It’s now happened to me three times that a comics pro whom I knew ended up in a sexual scandal. That’s disturbing. I suppose that many sexual predators function by seeming normal in public while having unpleasant secret lives. But I will continue to assume that people are what they seem to be until and unless unpleasant facts emerge about them. How can we function in society otherwise?

One way is to speak about these things more openly, and make clear that partisan politics can't get in the way of being vigilant and making clear sexually abusive behavior is unacceptable. And it's vital to ponder that many predators and perverts can have double or multiple personalities to disguise their actions. Perhaps if we quizzed some people on their overall personal character, we might be able to figure out whether certain individuals are worth supporting or not.

One more we could add is Tess Fowler Guittirez, who said:

It should be recalled, however, that Fowler may have once made unsubstantiated accusations against another writer/artist, and that doesn't help matters either. Those who seize upon scandals like these for the sake of opportunism are not improving the situation.

If there's more creators out there, old and new, I have yet to find them. 2 of those I've found commenting so far certainly don't have the best records to prove they're being altruistic. And when the vast majority of creators don't say a word, what was the point of that "pledge" they took years ago?

Marvel turns out the latest modern swimsuit special

Following up on the revived swimsuit special of the past year, Marvel's now publishing one for 2026, and Flickering Myth's got preview pages, but again, there's signs this'll be anything but a celebration. For one thing, as AIPT notes:

Kicking things off is Daniel Kibblesmith and Alessandro Miracolo for “Beach Bashed,” featuring a beach party hosted by Namor. A great opening page shows off a ton of heroes enjoying a pool, including the Watcher. Kibblesmith gets plenty of nods to Marvel events and character relationships throughout the story, with a main focus on Namor’s attempt to find Sue Storm. It’s a light tale for sure, but one that ends in a way only Namor could pull off.

If memory serves, Kibblesmith's one of the SJWs they employed earlier, and while it may seem like he's now willing to abandon that kind of stance, there's still signs the artwork is uninspired and otherwise sexless, and they still rely on the panel format used in the 2 earlier specials. It reminds me that, while some of the artwork in the Winter Break Special was marginally better, that special was still undermined by how they kept interrupting the artwork pages with a "story" that took up at least 15 pages, leaving the overall special with barely 16 or 17 pages of winter-based illustrations of various Marvel cast members, considerably less than the original swimsuit specials had over 3 decades ago. And the drawing of Elektra in the Winter Break special was particularly dull.

So again, I'm not sure why they're keeping on with this now, as they fail, beyond contributions from artists like J. Scott Campbell for variant covers, to offer anything that's seriously impressive. It underscores how poor the art world's becoming these days, at least according to how the mainstream hires them. And what do they mean by Namor being the "only one who can pull it off"? Isn't that provided the writer actually does a good job? Something that's been terrible lacking for over 2 decades now.

What John Byrne has to say about his new X-Men: Elsewhen story

Before I begin, while I've made clear in the past that the Phoenix Saga is not one of my favorite storylines - not on its own anyway - I am aware that terrible SJW Heather Antos actually attacked Byrne over bizarre accusations that he's supposedly homophobic/transphobic, even though he was the creator of Alpha Flight's Northstar, and it was originally his intention to emphasize that Jean-Paul Beubier was homosexual. From what I can tell, Antos must've attacked Byrne more out of bizarre jealousy along with virtue-signaling, and she does seem to have embarrassed herself with her employers over that.

But with all that said, does that mean I have to like the Phoenix Saga, or even the premise of Byrne's new alternate continuity story? Of course not, and seriously, what he's written up today is, IMO, distasteful, based in part on my being a fan of Jean Grey, and would I be taking this position if I weren't a fan? Anyway, Byrne was interviewed by the NY Times (archive link), and here's what's brought up in discussion:

Now 76, Byrne has re-emerged with what he’s calling his swan song: “X-Men: Elsewhen,” an alternate reality hardcover which revisits the X-Men at the point where he left, without his former collaborators but with a big plot twist: Phoenix was not killed.

Viewed within the specific context, if Jean was rescued from the Shiar and brought back to Earth as though nothing happened, after she allegedly wiped out billions, is that in good taste? Hardly. That told, what comes up next in the main interview is eyebrow raising:

For readers who may not be well-versed in the long history of the X-Men, can you briefly talk about the controversy around the Phoenix character?

There had never been a case where a superhero created by Stan and Jack had been turned into a villain. And we did that. We had her go out and blow up a whole planet and destroy an entire alien race. [Then editor in chief] Jim Shooter knew this was coming, but for some reason he said, “She must be punished” — that Phoenix had to be taken to a “prison asteroid,” and horribly tortured for all eternity. I said, “I’d rather kill her.” So that’s what we ended up doing.

What?!? Shooter thought Jean should be tortured?!? As though it weren't bad enough he wouldn't lift a finger in defense of her dignity as a character based on how she was being forced into the role of a criminal/murderess, he thought it okay to put her in a position where she'd end up being tortured to the end of time? Well, I knew there were sadly some very serious downsides to Shooter's MO, and Secret Wars was surely just the icing on the cake. What I did know years ago was that one of the story proposals was to have Jean put in a position similar to an actual Phoenix, where she'd revive but then be destroyed again repeatedly. I'm not sure if that's what Byrne's alluding to, but let's be clear: I just didn't find the whole premise appealing, and when the lead up to where Jean would be obliterated told that she'd wiped out 2 billion residents of an alien solar system...that made me sick. What's more, this whole storyline itself kept getting dredged up again and again, with Chris Claremont writing something vaguely similar when he got a job writing Justice League in the 2000s. What's so special about a story where a decent woman's turned into a monstress, but not one where she spends time with a loving family or something like that? And then, look what bizarre, questionable comment Byrne makes next:

But later, after you stopped working on X-Men books, Jean was brought back. So is anything ever really at stake in mainstream comics?

When Mark Gruenwald, my friend and editor, died unexpectedly, I mentioned it on my website and the first response was, “Oh, that’s terrible. I hope he recovers.” I thought: Oh my God, we’ve trained fans to expect that no death is actually permanent, even in the real world!

But this wasn't the real world they were dealing with! This was science-fiction/fantasy! And the later 1988-98 Excalibur was one of the most surreal series of all in Marvel's output. Resurrection is part and parcel of science-fantasy whether Byrne likes it or not, and he acts like it's some kind of calamity if handled otherwise? I'm sorry, but no. Resurrection in science-fantasy is not the worst thing that could happen, and to restrict it even in the Marvel/DC universes, or single them out as though they alone aren't allowed to employ the concept is insulting to the intellect, and offensive. Why, if you know where to look, there's undoubtably stories about resurrection of fictional characters in science-fiction/fantasy that are very enjoyable, in otherwise good taste, and we're being lectured that it's somehow a crime? Good grief. And then, look who he says he enjoyed writing most:

Which of the characters is the most fun to write?

Cyclops was always my favorite X-Man, from when I first started reading the book. Wolverine, of course. I often say Wolverine is my fault because [when I came on] Chris told me that he intended to write him out of the book. I was Canadian at that time and said, “No way are you getting rid of the only Canadian!”

But Jean wasn't fun at all? Perhaps not even Storm, Kitty Pryde, Scarlet Witch, Lois Lane and Lana Lang when he later wrote and drew Superman, or even Wonder Girl and Big Barda? Byrne unfortunately had a questionable approach to women at the time, and that he had 3 or 4 of the leading ladies drawn with short hair in his stories was probably the beginning. I recall a Superman story where an alien from Apocalips named Sleez mind-controlled Barda and Superman, and put them in a bizarre fanfiction situation where a snuff filmmaker would record them in something like a porno flick. I once read that Jack Kirby disliked that story because he considered it an insult to his wife, whom Barda was meant as a tribute to (and IIRC, there was a scene where Superman implied she looked like glop?!?). Superman may not have fared much better in that tale, and it was decidedly a low point in Byrne's run. And again, it doesn't always seem like he had much affection for some of the women in his stories, not even Aurora in Alpha Flight. Honestly, in hindsight, some of that stuff comes across as quite ludicrous, and has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Is Byrne correct though, that Claremont wanted to jettison Wolvie? I don't know, but some history items tell that Claremont wanted to put Wolvie in the grave and revive him as a villain. You could reasonably ask there if Claremont really loved Logan as a character, and of course, whether he actually loved Jean too, considering where he took her in the late 70s as the X-Men writer.

When people talk about giants of the era you came up in, you and Frank Miller are often on similar footing. Thoughts about his treatment of Wolverine?

This will get me in trouble, but I didn’t care much for Frank’s Wolverine. In terms of creating a hugely popular character, he did the right thing. My gut reaction was: beautiful artwork, but I don’t know this guy.

Well, based on Miller's appalling leftism, that's why I don't think I know him either, and he sure didn't give much reason to have faith in his ability to stand by his stories.

There’s a page in Elsewhen where you depict Wolverine brutally attacking Magneto. The backgrounds are bright red, his eyes are bright red, he’s in a murderous rage. Is this a new kind of ferocity for this character?

Well, it was always what we had in mind. There’s a scene, that I would never, in a million years, do. It’s Wolverine sitting at the breakfast table and Kitty Pryde [the youngest of the X-Men] comes in and says, “Hey,” in just the wrong tone of voice. And he guts her without a second thought and then goes on eating his Cheerios. Because he is quite literally a homicidal maniac.

Seriously, that's what he believes Logan should be?!? Strange. From what I'd read years ago, he wanted Wolvie to have a more likable persona, and this certainly is enough to wonder if Byrne's taking a contradictory position. He also makes it sound like he's taking the fictional-characters-are-real-life-people approach, which again, is utterly grating, illogical and brought down comicdom practically years ago.

And then, wouldn't you know it, an allusion to Byrne's leftism turns up:

It almost feels like we’re living in a comic book world today.

It feels like evil has won. I look at Washington and go, oh my God, this is the [guy] who I modeled my Lex Luthor in part on, back when he was just a big noise in business in New York.

Sigh. So he considers Trump a baddie and nothing else. A real shame. As though there weren't any better examples of bad billionaires out there at the time. On which note, as this Popverse article tells, if Byrne's take on Luthor was based on Trump, it was only partially, since there were other examples of billionaires at the time he'd drawn ideas from, including Ted Turner and Thomas Edison. But now, despite a suggestion to the contrary, Byrne sounds like he wants to claim Trump's literally the problem, and not the others. How odd. As a result, he's not all that different from Miller, so what's his point? At the end of the interview:

What do you consider your legacy?

When I look at my work, all I can see is the influences. There’s Neal Adams, there’s Joe Kubert, there’s Bernie Wrightson, there’s Jack Kirby, there’s Gil Kane. When people tell me they’re huge John Byrne fans, I go, “What are they seeing?”

I would like to think that when people see my work, it’s believable. If it’s two guys sitting at a bar, or if it’s two planets crashing into each other, I like to think that people will believe what they’re looking at. Just verisimilitude. There’s the word.

While there are several examples in his portfolio that're great, including his overall run on Fantastic Four, Byrne later stumbled by the turn of the century (his Spider-Man: Chapter One miniseries didn't get a good reception, IIRC), and I can't say he'll ever have as big a legacy as Kirby, Kane and Wrightson. Interesting that somebody who alluded to Kirby would've risked alienating him with a take on the aforementioned Barda from New Gods that was questionable at best, and ludicrous at worst. And Byrne's inability to avoid leftist political allusions will certainly for now make it difficult to decide how well his legacy can be admired overall.

Now again on the subject of Antos' recent attack on Byrne, what's really appalling is that she may have boosted sales for a story that I don't think should be considered a big deal, and alternate reality or not, it strikes me as tasteless. Interesting that she didn't attack Byrne because she cares about Jean, but rather, because she perceives his politics as incompatible with hers. That's got to be saying something. I don't like her MO, but even so, I'm not going to buy what Byrne's promoting as possibly his last writing and art project, because the whole premise was in questionable taste to start with, and became such an irritating cliche over the following decades. Even Colossus, if memory serves, was turned crooked in the early 90s, but he was never burdened with the kind of indignity Jean was when she was originally written obliterating citizens of an alien solar system, incurring the wrath of the Shiar. So why must Jean have suffered something that could make it difficult to use her as a character in later years? I know the setup was retconned with an alien lifeform disguising itself as Jean in 1985, but even so, that doesn't mean Claremont, Shooter, Byrne and company couldn't have created a new character in the mid-70s to take the role of the Phoenix instead of Jean being shoved into it. Now, we've since wound up with an embarrassing situation where the premise was repeatedly dredged up by bankrupt creators who can only think of emphasizing the darkness in the worst ways possible, and it's hurt comicdom very badly.

Marvel partners with USA Today for a Spider-Man project

Another of Marvel's pointless attempts to gain more publicity includes the following project at USA Today:

USA TODAY and Marvel Comics have partnered to provide USA TODAY’s PLAY digital entertainment hub with access to the most popular comic-book characters in the Marvel universe. PLAY will be the exclusive home for the new vertically formatted “Spider-Man TODAY” Infinity Comic series, which runs for 48 weeks beginning June 16 – with new issues dropping every Wednesday. Readers also will be able to dig into 1,000 curated archival Marvel comics ranging from old-school classics to modern favorites.

“USA TODAY is the largest news publisher in the country, and so that's always exciting,” says Marvel’s Spider-Man editor Nick Lowe. “And then you pair them with the greatest comic-book company in the world, Marvel Comics. I mean, that's chocolate and peanut butter, right? It's the best.”

Lowe sees “Spider-Man TODAY” as “the new incarnation of the Spider-Man funnies” by Spidey cocreator Stan Lee and artist John Romita Sr. that ran in newspapers starting back in the 1970s. “This is us trying to take up that baton and run the next part of the race.”

The new series features a “dream team” of artists Al Ewing (“Venom”) and Todd Nauck (“Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man”) bringing to life a story that “will span the entire Marvel universe and is good for fans of all ages,” Lowe says. [...]

Gee, when a left-wing ideologue like Ewing is involved, what's there to look forward to here? Even Lowe's not encouraging. That aside, why do they think a comic strip that wasn't as well written as the mainstay pamphlets is something to emulate? I seem to recall that, in the last few years before it ended, there was a very atrocious story where both Wolverine and Sabretooth turned up, with the latter incomprehensibly searching for the former, and was even willing to threaten Mary Jane Watson if that's what it took to get Spider-Man to reveal Logan's location (which he didn't know). Then Wolverine turned up and both he and Sabretooth knocked themselves out, and soon vanished again. That storyline, coming as it did near the official end of the original newspaper strip 7 years ago, was so insulting to the intellect, mainly because it didn't depict Spidey unleashing a gale of justified anguish at Sabretooth for threatening his wife. Why should this be just Wolvie's battle? That it was made to look almost absurdly comedic only worsened the tale. I couldn't bring myself to continue reading the newspaper strip after that, and besides, if the comics were already tainted by Joe Quesada, it only figures the newspaper strip was too.

So what's the use of turning out another comic strip that could be similar to ran during 1977-2019? Coupled with such awful writers and editors, that's why this is not something to care about, and could be worse than what the newspaper strip wound up being like. They also hint they've prepared comics, digital or otherwise, that're "modern", and that's another red flag they could be foisting some of the worst of the modern era on the readerships, stuff that could've come after Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's marriage was forcibly annulled. Also, I've never been very impressed with USA Today's overall news coverage, which is little different from J. Jonah Jameson's MO. One more reason it'd be better not to waste time and money on what they now have in store for Spidey. Marvel's done little more than make a business deal with a real life variation on the Daily Bugle.

A convention built on GI Joe in Augusta, Georgia

Fox54-WFXG gives a report about a comics convention in Augusta, Georgia built primarily on GI Joe fandom:

One of the biggest comic book conventions in the country came to Augusta this past weekend.

Joefest came back to Augusta for the ninth consecutive year. The convention is one of the biggest G.I. Joe conventions in the world and included a number of collector’s items, celebrity voice actors and comic book artists.

“This is my second year here, and we're having a blast with it,” vendor Jeff Mercado said. “I’m a big G.I. Joe fan anyway, so it made it easy to come. I have my own collection, so finding rare pieces that I want for my own collection, selling off some of my older stuff that I had from when I was a child, and then, I started getting into a lot of the other things. I try to just hit all the markets, you know, what everybody's into collecting, so I have a wide variety of stuff that we like to sell.”

Having a convention built on the Joes is great. But the trouble is, this is the kind of convention where collectibles are sold at huge prices:

The event included over 200 vendors serving over 15,000 people over three days. Vendor Jeff Mercado says that the collector’s items at the convention are worth thousands of dollars.

“I mean, we've got stuff here that's five bucks, 10 bucks, all the way up to a couple $1000 for a piece,” Mercado said. “I got some airplanes that go for 2,000 bucks. We got some tanks in here that range in the 100s, 200s. We cover a broad spectrum. There's all different kinds of collectors, so we try to have everything for every price point.”

Oh good grief. This sounds like another convention focused on selling to speculators, and that could even include those who buy toys for archiving in the vault. Indeed, what's the use of having old toys around if they're not going to be donated to museums anny more than old pamphlets are?

I think it's wonderful to establish a convention built around GI Joe as much as various other entertainment franchises. But that doesn't mean the speculator market should be mixed in with it, based on how high some of this stuff can sell, yet it's entirely possible it won't be played with or read, and end up locked in vaults till sold again at auctions. Indeed, toys can wind up being sold on auctions as much as Superman's most expensive back issues. And that makes the whole purpose of the toy industry look like a joke too.

An op-ed about the Andrew Farago scandal, and a bit more research

Lavender Hotels has an op-ed about the invasion-of-privacy scandal caused by ousted SF Cartoon Art Museum curator Andrew Farago, and makes some important points about what's happened, though unsurprisingly, they won't allude to any of his online antics, and there are some leftist biases here too:

The downfall of Andrew Farago happened inside a space meant to be entirely safe. For over two decades, Farago was the public face and institutional backbone of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum, a beloved cultural fixture celebrating comic strip history, graphic novels, and animation. He was a respected historian, an author, and an award-winning pillar of the tight-knit independent comic community.

"Beloved" and "respected"? If these writers would pay more attention to what Farago was writing on his social media pages, which was pretty cavalier, such descriptions could be considered disputable. A vital query to be made is: does being rude and calling everybody you disagree with "nazis" make you a better person? No, it does not. Unfortunately, Farago seemed to think otherwise.

For decades, the alternative comic and animation industries have marketed themselves as progressive, inclusive safe havens for outsiders. This case exposes the structural vulnerability inherent in organizations built entirely around tight social bonds and informal networking.

When an institution relies on a single individual to act as its gatekeeper, historical curator, and community liaison, professional boundaries inevitably blur. Farago began his tenure at the museum as a volunteer in 2000, rising to a paid role in 2001, and taking the mantle of official curator by 2005. Over 21 years, he curated more than 100 exhibitions. He was embedded in the personal lives of the artists he championed.

This level of integration creates a dangerous shield. Power in small cultural non-profits rarely looks like a corporate hierarchy; instead, it manifests as social capital. When an influential figure hosts a party, the attendees are not just friends—they are peers, subordinates, creators, and families whose professional fortunes are intertwined with the host’s goodwill.

As the former curator of the museum, I assume he was in charge of selecting the projects for exhibition. Something tells me that, if a right-winger wanted to develop an exhibition there under his management, Farago would've vehemently refused and shunned the conservative figure on the spot. For all we know, he probably didn't even include Chuck Dixon among the interviewees for his Batman history, and recalling Ethan van Sciver was blacklisted from DC as a result of Farago's machinations, it wouldn't be shocking if the latter had no role in Farago's book writings either. Also, what's this about "social capital"? Is the columnist implying capitalism is to blame here? If so, that's distasteful and making it sound like "progressive" and "inclusive" are inherently positive notions also obscures more serious issues to consider here.

The defense strategy in digital voyeurism cases frequently relies on the destruction of immediate evidence. Farago’s defense will likely lean heavily on his prompt deletion of the recordings and his self-issued written apology, attempting to frame the event as an isolated, impulsive lapse in judgment rather than a systemic pattern.

Digital forensics tells a much harsher story. Deleting a file from a commercial smartphone filesystem rarely removes the underlying data blocks immediately. Modern law enforcement extraction tools can routinely recover deleted media caches, unallocated space fragments, and temporary database thumbnails. The seizure of twelve separate electronic devices indicates that investigators are looking far beyond a single afternoon's recording.

The true legal exposure for Farago rests on what those remaining eleven devices contain. If forensic analysts uncover evidence of historical recording, distribution, or the involvement of minors across older datasets, the current requested 20 misdemeanor or low-level felony counts of invasion of privacy could escalate into severe structural charges carrying mandatory prison sentences.

The Cartoon Art Museum faces its own reckoning. The institution must now audit decades of internal operations, off-site workshops, and youth education programs managed under Farago’s direct supervision. The immediate termination was a necessary public relations maneuver, but it does not absolve the broader cultural ecosystem from ignoring the risks of concentrated, unchecked social authority.

Trust inside small arts organizations cannot be managed by a handshake agreement or shared progressive ideals. It requires strict operational protocols, background evaluations, and independent oversight structures that treat cultural icons with the exact same skepticism as any corporate executive.

No doubt, the museum will suffer from a drop in attendance as a result of this scandal, and of course, Farago's history books are bound to lose audience too. But hey, as mentioned before, they probably aren't the most dedicated, let alone accurate, since he may have forcibly omitted anybody he despised from his narratives. The article's right though, that educational programs the museum may have run will have to be investigated to figure out whether Farago abused any of its students over the years. For all we know, there could turn out to be more witnesses than previously thought. And what if Farago has more than one single online cloud storage where he kept disturbing materials? The market for online storages is very competitive, and it's always possible to register multiple accounts on different servers. The police will need to investigate that too, and it wouldn't be surprising if plenty had their own tools for data recovery to help police with investigations when needed.

In addition to the above op-ed, if there's more to say about the now disgraced Farago, well first, I discovered that, if there's any social media pages he didn't get rid of so far, it's his Threads page (although that could change soon enough), and if there's something I noticed here worth commenting on, it's the following:

Geez...was Farago giving a hint what he really thinks of invasions of privacy/sexual abuse, and even Identity Crisis from 2004? I get the strange feeling he simultaneously doesn't like Terry Long, and from what I know of him so far, it doesn't sound like he ever spoke out against DC's worst directions since the turn of the century. If not, that too speaks volumes about his MO. And then, there's this:

When I noticed this post about GI Joe, I couldn't help wonder if he was imitating video filmer Richard Meyer, since I recall the latter once did a video about a GI Joe annual (yearbook) nearly a decade ago, and what Farago says sounds oddly similar to what Meyer said. Was this Farago's way of expressing spite for somebody he doesn't agree with, and likely never met? All that aside, seriously, I doubt Mr. Farago is a GI Joe fan.

I also thought to try and do some research on past writings of his, and found that in 2008, the Los Angeles Times quoted him on the late artist Michael Turner:

“He was definitely one of the most popular and influential comic-book artists working right now,” said Andrew Farago, curator of San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum. “He was very, very much in demand as a cover artist on high-profile projects.”

If Farago's a woke male feminist these days with a sex-negative viewpoint, then depending how you view this, he had a pretty different position back at the time. What are the chances he'd come within even miles of saying anything positive about Turner today? Perhaps next to none. He's surely the kind of leftist who simply "goes with the flow" and accepts what they consider acceptable positions, and in Farago's case, it was quite possibly because he thought it would make a great shield from scrutiny.

Here's also an older interview he gave to the Comics Reporter and the late Tom Spurgeon in 2011, where he tells that:

I'm very fortunate in that I often find myself in situations where I can't believe that I'm getting paid for this. Joining the National Cartoonists Society and meeting about 90 percent of the strip cartoonists I grew up reading in a social context has been incredibly cool. It changes your perspective when you flip through the comics section and realize that you've got good drinking stories about half the artists on the page. I've had dinner with Gahan Wilson, walked around Rockefeller Center with Larry Hama (which would have made 12-year-old me's head explode), toured the offices of Mad Magazine, Marvel Comics and DC Comics, shingled a roof with Jeff Keane, given museum tours to Art Spiegelman and Mo Willems, had tea with Hayao Miyazaki, and went to a Simpsons script read-through in Los Angeles earlier this month thanks to Tom Gammill, whom I met through the NCS. I've honestly given up on ever making a wish list of comic/cartoon things I'd like to do, because I've gotten to do so many amazing things as a result of this job. If I'm hanging out in a pub with Alan Moore and Scooby-Doo next year, I don't think I'll be all that surprised.

On the downside, when you're working for a non-profit that you really believe in, it's easy to find yourself working 50 or more hours a week, tackling extra projects on weekends, and never quite being off-duty. And there's a lot of paperwork, fundraising and grant writing, which balances out the more exciting aspects of the job. My family are the only non-cartoonists in my address book, so I feel like I'm on the clock even when I'm hanging out with friends.

I wonder what any and all of these figures he speaks of think, now that the mask is off, and Farago turned out to be so repulsive? Some of the professionals he spent time with are leftists, of course, so what they think is quite possibly the most interesting part of all. Presumably, if they've heard the news about Farago's crimes, they're shutting the door on him now. But did they ever notice anything fishy about him years ago? And if so, why'd they want anything to do with him then? That aside, a terrible shame he was paid for anything. IIRC, Hama was blacklisted by Dan DiDio years ago, and Farago did nothing to help him. And why does a leftist like Spiegelman matter so much?

I then found a post on Peter Laird's blog from 2014, of the history book Farago wrote about Ninja Turtles (Ultimate Visual History), and Laird hints he's dissatisfied, if anything, with how it's put together, in a way that's very sloppy:

However, I was disappointed that it also contains a number of mistakes, inaccuracies, and some weirdly inconsistent editorial decisions with regard to art credits (sometimes there are, sometimes there aren't, with no discernible rhyme or reason). I used up about half a package of Post-It notes while carefully going through the book so I could put together this list of comments.

Here goes…

End pages in the front of the book: I was sort of baffled by the odd choice of art for this, out of all of the TMNT artwork available -- a drawing of a Turtle in boxer shorts? With this image begins a strangely inconsistent treatment of crediting and/or describing the illustrations -- in this case, no artist is cited as having drawn that image, either on these pages, or -- as would be more likely in a book like this -- on one of the pages to follow. It kind of looks like a Mike Dooney drawing, though I cannot say for certain.

First glossy page, right hand side: This reproduction of the very first group shot of the TMNT, penciled by Kevin Eastman and inked by me back in 1983, with a slab of mottled green superimposed for some reason, is not credited anywhere that I could find. It's also an odd place to put this uncredited drawing, in my opinion, when a far better location would be on page 20, where it is described in the section about the creation of the TMNT.

Following page, left hand side: This full-color piece by Kevin is also uncredited, as least as far as I could tell.

Second page following, left hand side: Another full-color piece, this one of a leaping Leonardo, again by Kevin, is uncredited.

Two page spread following the "Contents" page: This unusual full-color piece by me is also uncredited, and no information about it is given at all, which to my mind is extremely weird, given the curious nature of it, with the Turtles wearing costumes that are very different from the norm. [...]

Page 28: Four of my black and white TMNT pin-up sketches are printed on this page with no artist's credit or description.

Page 31: There are no artist's credits listed for the insert. This, as I recall, was penciled by Kevin and inked and toned by me.

Page 33: The image of April on the right hand side of the page is described as "April O' Neil as she appeared in Eastman and Laird's original comics." I don't understand why there is no mention of which issue and what page this panel is from.

Page 34: There is no information describing what the insert card in the lower left hand corner is.

Page 35: This image is described as "The Turtles preparing to engage in combat with the deadly Triceratons." Why not say which issue it was from? (I think it was TMNT Volume One, #6.) [...]

Page 40: In the second paragraph on this page, it is said that "… Eastman and Laird knew that the time was right to take the Turtles to the next level." The obvious implication here is that we were actively looking around for ways to grow the TMNT business in the direction of licensing and merchandising, and that's simply not true. It's not that we were averse to it -- we'd already proved that by striking deals with Dark Horse and Palladium Books and a few others -- but these are things that came to us, not deals that we went out looking for. We were focused on trying to get the TMNT comics out on time and with a decent level of quality.

Also, Kevin is quoted as saying that we'd been approached by other licensing agents wanting to rep the TMNT before Mark Freedman showed up. I have no memory of any agents other than Mark Freedman ever approaching us.

On the bottom right of the page is a reproduction of a large TMNT group shot that I penciled and inked; again, no artist credit.

One of the commentors also said:

One thing I was extremely disappointed with the book is the coverage on the 2003 cartoon, since it is my personal favorite incarnation of these characters. Or seemingly lack thereof...A very limited amount of text for 7 seasons of my personal favorite (if added, maybe a 1 1/2 pages at most)...and even the pictures/art used were disappointing. One pic of Mikey from the very last season for 1 whole page? And then one pic of Shredder from the very last season for 1 whole page? No pics of the 4 of them in action, or the 4 of them together, or even villains like Agent Bishop, or artwork/pictures to show people the darker tone/aspects of the cartoon & how it pushed the show as far as it could go for a cartoon, which I very much appreciated (whether it be samples from episodes like Same As It Never Was or Bad Day, or the hallucination/nightmare of Leonardo stabbing through Splinter, Baxter Stockman's body falling apart, etc.), no comments from any of the voice actors of the show...the 2003 cartoon portion of the book I was honestly very disheartened about. But hey, what can I say. I'm just a guy named Matt from Iowa who just loves the 4kids show to death, lol. It's very partial to me and it's what got me back into the characters.

Well, this is telling something. It sounds like this history book isn't the well-researched, accurate overview the establishment would have us believe it was. And now that Farago was arrested, it'll all be seen as moot and badly aged. If there's not enough history books about TMNT on the market to date, let's hope somebody with a better moral backbone will take the time to do the research, and not rely upon anything Farago may have written in his now worthless book in order to try and develop an improved history of how the Ninja Turtles came to be. If anyone's considering buying the Farago book, please, look for another one, or try to develop a research book of your own. Farago doesn't need our money, and besides, what if he uses any dough he gets to pay his legal bills? Let's not finance that.

And then, let's not forget the horrid political side of Farago, which Fandom Pulse reminds everyone about:

Alongside that professional record, Farago maintained an active social media presence that was consistently and combatively left-wing in its orientation toward comics industry controversies. He was a vocal opponent of the Comicsgate movement, describing its participants as bigots and comparing them to racist fictional villains. In February 2024, Bleeding Fool documented a series of his posts, including one stating: “Never forget that everyone in ComicsGate took personal offense when Superman took a stand against the Klan,” and another drawing a comparison between Comicsgate creators and the X-Men villain Graydon Creed, writing: “Watching the X-Men cartoon again. Graydon Creed, the shrill, screaming bigot seemed so over the top and ridiculous back then, but today he’d be running the Mutants of TikTok social media account and would be cranking out a dozen YouTube videos a day about the Woke menace.”

Farago took to The Daily Beast where he was quoted by the media at length in his attacks on ComicsGate: “[Comicsgate] is made up of people who were into the Gamergate thing and when that ran out of steam they noticed that they hadn’t made comics miserable for enough people yet.”

Look who was talking - somebody who doubtless turned a deaf ear and blind eye when DC and Marvel under Dan DiDio and Joe Quesada turned the comics miserable and worse, and because Mr. Farago didn't want to alienate them, he likely said nothing in history books, and didn't take any objective view of the issues involved. Utterly shameful indeed.

Also, the Comics Journal themselves posted some news about this, which is likely an indication he's no longer employed by them as a contributing writer. Again, whatever he wrote for them now stands as meaningless, and from what I've read from his resume, I don't think he could write his way out of the proverbial wet paper bag.

Anyway, these are the clues I could find from his resume so far that he's not the genius he'd surely want everyone else to think he is. Some could argue Farago's favoratism for Batman could hint at what's wrong with how folks like him approach the whole medium, and I'm sure some will continue to look for whether his leftist MO turns up in any of his writings. And whether Farago serves a prison sentence for his lawbreaking, it's possible he'll find himself a very lonely man, with reason, and his fortunes will hopefully be diminished by the legal bills he's surely paying now.